My guess is roughly half of the Sawant total was a protest vote by Republicans. That's based on polling for Republican candidates in the last couple of elections. And assuming that's the case, then some of the bluest electorate in America still polls less than 15% for a progressive Socialist candidate, and this race isn't a harbinger of anything to speak of for the left._________________The reward for a good life is a good life.

you keep ignoring the part where Sawant scored about a quarter of the vote on the friendliest possible turf in the country for a socialist. she went out and campaigned and knocked on doors and planted lawn signs and rallied and out of the hardcore leftists in Washington's 43rd district she could only get a quarter of them to vote for her. in a race with no conservative spoiler. in an election climate where we're all supposed to be sick of the Democrats and don't trust them anymore. in a political climate where we're all supposed to be so welcoming of third parties and unconventional candidates. in the wake of Occupy Wall Street. with all that going for her, why did she lose by such an embarrassingly massive margin?

that is not a sign of progress and victory. that is a sign that it's time to sit down and reevaluate the entire movement and the entire environment in which it operates, because if it can't win over more than 29% of the left, something is very wrong with it and it is going nowhere.

because--and i realize you struggle with this point--29% does not win you anything in the United States. you don't get 29% of the seats. you don't get attention. you don't get respect. call me when you can break into the forties, if not actually win an election.

that you call it a "united left list" is just further indication that you understand nothing about United States politics.

*sigh* I'd hate to repeat myself so I won't. I try to explain how election campaign works, the issue of being outspent, the issue of being unknown going against an 18 year incumbent, the issue of running openly as a socialist, but eh you're just not getting it.

Usagi Miyamoto: Ah yes that famous conservative-socialist protest vote. I saw someone hilariously say on a comment field "she's probably a republican plant". Ah the lunacy of the two-party duopoly and it's lesser-evilism. Aside from those other issues. Yeah the Chopp campaign used their establishment position to pressure unions and other groups to support them or else they won't get any "influence". So incredibly even in a Democrat versus Socialist race the spectre of "lesser-evilism" appears, now more in it's blackmail form than it's promise form.
At least there was one union local brave enough to endorse Sawant._________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

is an issue--as you say it is--then perhaps that means you need to sit down and think about why it might be an issue that only 29% of one of the bluest electorates in the country was willing to vote for Sawant. only 29% of the voters that should be most amicable to socialism were in fact willing to vote for it*.

'cuz if running openly as a socialist is an issue, perhaps that means there's a deeper problem than just being outspent and challenging an incumbent.

you have all the dots right in front of you and it only takes one line to connect them.

*assuming that all of those 29% of voters were in fact sincerely casting ballots for her.

**ironically, you could look to better examples than Sawant anyways. Bernie Sanders not only is a socialist, but is a socialist on a national platform. of course, he comes from a constituency that is amicable to it or at least willing to overlook it, and he has to "play ball with the politicians" in order to make himself relevant and do anything, and he has to bring home tangible benefits to his state to convince Vermonters (Vermontians? Vermontoids? Vermontese? what is the demonym for Vermont) to keep voting for him. but the end result is that he has fairly high-profile legitimate straight up political power. he's a much more convincing success story--and you'll notice that he's more convincing because he won elections. not also-ran. not 29%. not "gold star for effort." won. won reelection. won pretty commandingly. in fact, he won by roughly the same margin by which Sawant lost. why you're harping on Sawant's landslide defeat is a bit of a mystery when 2012 actually does have a socialist electoral success story.

sanders is pretty socialist, but he's "socialist" in american terminology rather than what you would have to have in order to be a congressional or gubernatorial candidate for a Socialist party like SA.

*sigh* I'd hate to repeat myself so I won't. I try to explain how election campaign works, the issue of being outspent, the issue of being unknown going against an 18 year incumbent, the issue of running openly as a socialist, but eh you're just not getting it.

I'm not sure that's really the issue. sawant's pretty much trotskyite platform is just not going to make it here. not even in our most leftist populations.

Or I could pay a visit to one of the newest Socialist Alternative groups. In Mobile, Alabama.
But yes I'd love to go to Seattle some day._________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

Ken Jennings: I'll take Double Meanings for $1000.
Alex Trebek: The answer is: Willful ignorance.
Jennings: What is a major problem in instituting political reform in America and the reason Him does not understand American politics as well as he thinks he does?
Trebek: Correct!_________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

So on the one hand 1) "booh! those are horrible results!"
and on the other 2)"hah! Socialism can never make it in the U.S."
And when I say it's a good result considering the circumstances go to 1) or say how much the U.S isn't europe.

Right._________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

You know how this is going to be received, don't you? Seeing as you literally just copy-pasted this from marxists.org and didn't add anything yourself... I mean, I think that's kinda insulting. People don't change their minds by reading a single article - even if it was written by a smart dude. And by the way, Einstein was hella smart when it came to physics and the like, but that doesn't make him an authority on economics and politics.

The natural response to "Why are you a socialist" would be to point out that the smartest man in modern history was also, and build your house outward from there. And just how many articles does one need to read before their mind changes?_________________

I don't think that's true at all. Him is not a socialist because he heard that Einstein was a socialist. That would be really weird. Really, really weird.

Him arrived at the views he holds because of the political environment he was in when he was young, modified by poignant experiences and arguments he's heard that struck him in just such a way. Those experiences and arguments would be the "natural response" to "Why are you a socialist?"_________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine